[Discuss] IC Ban Didn't Work: Permissible to OOC Ban?

[James]

Tom Vogt wrote:
> AJ didn't speak without authority. I stand fully behind him on this. 
> The OOC ban feature is
> *NOT*
> a proper mean to "work around" bugs. Was that clear enough? (to those 
> without HTML e-mail, imagine the NOT being red, bold and 72px.)
>
>
> Yes, abusing a bug might justify an OOC ban. But that requires 
> intentional, malicious action, not just the fact that there is a bug.
>
> In a metaphorical sense: Speeding is a crime, but if I'm not caught 
> because the radar thingy didn't work that doesn't mean you can lock me 
> in with the murderers for 20 years instead.
>
> OOC bans are serious matters and the OOC ban page says that in no 
> uncertain terms.
>
>
>
I know he didn't speak without authority and I agree with him and you on 
the matter (I read the post you made on the bug tracker about it and if 
you saw I put that it should not be done above you, because I've read 
the ooc ban page and could make that out).  I would not want someone to 
do it to me for something that I could not help.  However, that doesn't 
mean it should be a blanket statement.  If there were abuses involved 
then you should use the ooc ban page, correct (I am sorry for implying 
that was in fact an abuse, because I don't know if it was or not)?  In a 
general sense blanket statements are wrong, thus my disagreement.

This is a little different then speeding and the radar gun not working.  
If you are caught speeding (the gun did work) but the court is closed 
that particular day, do you not still have to end up paying the fine?  
That doesn't even completely work for the situation I was talking about.


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss